PDA

View Full Version : Pakistani Prime Minister Urges Obama To End Drone Strikes



Green Arrow
11-07-2013, 05:32 PM
Pakistani prime minister urges Obama to end drone strikes (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/us-usa-pakistan-drones-idUSBRE99M19D20131023)


Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday urged U.S. President Barack Obama to end drone strikes in Pakistan, touching on a sore subject just as relations between the two countries improve after years of suspicion over Afghanistan (http://www.reuters.com/places/afghanistan) and the U.S. counterterrorism fight.

"I ... brought up the issue of drones in our meeting, emphasizing the need for an end to such strikes," Sharif told reporters after meeting with Obama in the Oval Office.


Relations were badly strained following the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden deep inside Pakistan (http://www.reuters.com/places/pakistan) where he was in hiding. But they appear to be on the mend as the United States prepares to pull forces out of Afghanistan in 2014.


The United States has quietly restarted security assistance to Pakistan after freezing aid during the period of soured relations, when Washington frequently voiced complaints about the ties of the Pakistani intelligence service to militant groups active in Afghanistan.


A series of major setbacks in recent years included a 2011 NATO air strike that mistakenly killed Pakistani border guards and another incident that year in which a CIA contractor killed two men on the streets of Lahore.


Obama acknowledged tensions and "misunderstandings" between the two countries. He said he and Sharif had pledged to work together on security issues in ways that "respect Pakistan's sovereignty."



Now is President Obama's chance to earn the Nobel Peace Prize he never deserved. I pray to the goddess Eirênê that he chooses diplomacy, and stops this madness.

Peter1469
11-07-2013, 06:49 PM
That is his public statement directed to his people. He, through back channels, agrees with the strikes.

Green Arrow
11-07-2013, 06:50 PM
That is his public statement directed to his people. He, through back channels, agrees with the strikes.

Then I will pray that they both regain their sanity and stop this.

Beevee
11-07-2013, 07:01 PM
That is his public statement directed to his people. He, through back channels, agrees with the strikes.

Are you privy to back channels then? Whose mobile did you crack?

Peter1469
11-07-2013, 07:02 PM
I am mostly against it. The CIA certainly can't do it legally under international law. (They are not combatants). And the ethics issue- if you make it easy to kill the enemy without risking your own men, aren't you going to be more likely to use force? That sort of power corrupts.

I would cut the child into two pieces and only use drone strikes rarely for very high level targets.

Peter1469
11-07-2013, 07:03 PM
Are you privy to back channels then? Whose mobile did you crack?

I am not releasing any classified information. Open source intel has reported on it.

But I do know that the open source got it right. For once.

snali
11-07-2013, 08:58 PM
The drones strikes are valuable for the CIA it allows them to kill any terrorist without risking their own troops making the political costs low in fact the drones could get political advantage as it did for Obama during the 2012 election

greatestino
11-07-2013, 09:11 PM
I am in support of drone strikes but only to a certain extent. On one hand, I feel like they are very useful when it comes to surveillance, and killing high profile targets. On the other hand, thousands of innocent citizens are being killed as a result of these drone strikes. We don't know the identity of the victims or how many victims were killed in any of these drone strikes. Sure, it a good short term policy but for every 1 target we kill, we create 10 more enemies because a friend or family member was killed in the strike. A high rank member of Al Qaeda (killed in 2008 by drone strike lol) said that he can recruit in a village for 3 months and only get 2 individuals to join his cause, but once a drone strike hits the same community then all of the survivors will join his cause. I find that statement to be very true because all America is doing is making thousands of enemies. I also find it said that in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Lebanon parents use drones to scare their kids like parents do monsters in America. For example, A parent might say "If you aren't being good then the drones will come down and get you" and the kids can hear the drones they just can't see them.

Thoughts?

Codename Section
11-07-2013, 09:13 PM
I am in support of drone strikes but only to a certain extent. On one hand, I feel like they are very useful when it comes to surveillance, and killing high profile targets. On the other hand, thousands of innocent citizens are being killed as a result of these drone strikes. We don't know the identity of the victims or how many victims were killed in any of these drone strikes. Sure, it a good short term policy but for every 1 target we kill, we create 10 more enemies because a friend or family member was killed in the strike. A high rank member of Al Qaeda (killed in 2008 by drone strike lol) said that he can recruit in a village for 3 months and only get 2 individuals to join his cause, but once a drone strike hits the same community then all of the survivors will join his cause. I find that statement to be very true because all America is doing is making thousands of enemies. I also find it said that in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Lebanon parents use drones to scare their kids like parents do monsters in America. For example, A parent might say "If you aren't being good then the drones will come down and get you" and the kids can hear the drones they just can't see them.

Thoughts?

Well said.

Green Arrow
11-07-2013, 09:18 PM
I am in support of drone strikes but only to a certain extent. On one hand, I feel like they are very useful when it comes to surveillance, and killing high profile targets. On the other hand, thousands of innocent citizens are being killed as a result of these drone strikes. We don't know the identity of the victims or how many victims were killed in any of these drone strikes. Sure, it a good short term policy but for every 1 target we kill, we create 10 more enemies because a friend or family member was killed in the strike. A high rank member of Al Qaeda (killed in 2008 by drone strike lol) said that he can recruit in a village for 3 months and only get 2 individuals to join his cause, but once a drone strike hits the same community then all of the survivors will join his cause. I find that statement to be very true because all America is doing is making thousands of enemies. I also find it said that in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Lebanon parents use drones to scare their kids like parents do monsters in America. For example, A parent might say "If you aren't being good then the drones will come down and get you" and the kids can hear the drones they just can't see them.

Thoughts?

Al Qaeda was nothing but a band of tribal goat fuckers in Afghanistan until we arrived and helped them fight off the Soviets by giving them weapons and money. It got worse when we tore apart Afghanistan and weakened Iraq so they could march on over to a new recruiting ground. Then we started launching drone strikes across the Middle East, and now Al Qaeda has spread across the Middle East and into Africa, where they have pretty much taken over a whole fucking country. Even in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was secondary to the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan.

The temporary benefits are not worth the lasting damage, nor the selling of our souls.

greatestino
11-07-2013, 09:27 PM
Al Qaeda was nothing but a band of tribal goat fuckers in Afghanistan until we arrived and helped them fight off the Soviets by giving them weapons and money. It got worse when we tore apart Afghanistan and weakened Iraq so they could march on over to a new recruiting ground. Then we started launching drone strikes across the Middle East, and now Al Qaeda has spread across the Middle East and into Africa, where they have pretty much taken over a whole fucking country. Even in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was secondary to the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan.

The temporary benefits are not worth the lasting damage, nor the selling of our souls.

Al Qaeda has been in Africa since the late 80's specifically Somalia, being that they partnered up with the AIAI (known as Al Shabaab today) during the Somalian war. Also, globalization and modernization has also contributed to these terrorist groups expanding, borders are more open then ever and technology has made it easier to communicate and plan attacks. These groups also thrive in failed states that lack the resources and security to fight off these terrorist groups.

Green Arrow
11-07-2013, 09:32 PM
Al Qaeda has been in Africa since the late 80's specifically Somalia, being that they partnered up with the AIAI (known as Al Shabaab today) during the Somalian war. Also, globalization and modernization has also contributed to these terrorist groups expanding, borders are more open then ever and technology has made it easier to communicate and plan attacks. These groups also thrive in failed states that lack the resources and security to fight off these terrorist groups.

They were there, sure, but not in any strength enough to take over whole areas and hold them against Western military might.

Peter1469
11-07-2013, 09:41 PM
Al Qaeda was nothing but a band of tribal goat fuckers in Afghanistan until we arrived and helped them fight off the Soviets by giving them weapons and money. It got worse when we tore apart Afghanistan and weakened Iraq so they could march on over to a new recruiting ground. Then we started launching drone strikes across the Middle East, and now Al Qaeda has spread across the Middle East and into Africa, where they have pretty much taken over a whole fucking country. Even in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was secondary to the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan.

The temporary benefits are not worth the lasting damage, nor the selling of our souls.

The US supported local fighters against the Soviets. The Saudis supported the foreign fighters.

greatestino
11-07-2013, 10:03 PM
They were there, sure, but not in any strength enough to take over whole areas and hold them against Western military might.

Al Qaeda and AIAI (Al Shabaab) took over the entire southern part of Somalia and parts of Kenya. They maintained those areas until US troops and the Ethiopian Army invaded, this is when the famous "black hawk down" happened but point taken

Captain Obvious
11-07-2013, 10:40 PM
"al Shabaab" - sounds like a restaurant.

Green Arrow
11-07-2013, 11:12 PM
The US supported local fighters against the Soviets. The Saudis supported the foreign fighters.

Al Qaeda were local fighters, for the most part, though there were Saudi plants in their ranks.

Codename Section
11-07-2013, 11:36 PM
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1426551_500377256736189_1833973432_n.jpg

Codename Section
11-07-2013, 11:45 PM
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1383528_500207526753162_2005203908_n.png

Green Arrow
11-07-2013, 11:54 PM
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02095/dr_2095816b.jpg

Girl, four, left with horrific burns after U.S. drone attack in Pakistan is brought to America for surgery (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077753/She-lucky-Girl-left-horrific-burns-U-S-drone-attack-receive-surgery.html)


A girl who was burned beyond recognition by a U.S. drone and left for dead in a trashcan is about to undergo reconstructive surgery.



The child who has been named Shakira, which means thankful, has been brought to the U.S. from her home in Pakistan. Surgeons have offered to operate on her injuries free of charge.


Shriner’s Hospital in Galveston, Texas, will be carrying out the reconstructive operations on Shakira's face and hands.

Codename Section
11-07-2013, 11:55 PM
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/529370_499459046828010_1743949435_n.jpg

Peter1469
11-08-2013, 07:17 AM
Al Qaeda were local fighters, for the most part, though there were Saudi plants in their ranks.

I was always under the impression that A Q was primarily a transnational movement.

Beevee
11-08-2013, 08:48 AM
I am not releasing any classified information. Open source intel has reported on it.

But I do know that the open source got it right. For once.

Open source intel is now Snowden. Right?

Peter1469
11-08-2013, 08:59 AM
Open source intel is now Snowden. Right?

No it isn't. I didn't get the info from the material he released.

Adelaide
11-08-2013, 01:12 PM
I am in support of drone strikes but only to a certain extent. On one hand, I feel like they are very useful when it comes to surveillance, and killing high profile targets. On the other hand, thousands of innocent citizens are being killed as a result of these drone strikes. We don't know the identity of the victims or how many victims were killed in any of these drone strikes. Sure, it a good short term policy but for every 1 target we kill, we create 10 more enemies because a friend or family member was killed in the strike. A high rank member of Al Qaeda (killed in 2008 by drone strike lol) said that he can recruit in a village for 3 months and only get 2 individuals to join his cause, but once a drone strike hits the same community then all of the survivors will join his cause. I find that statement to be very true because all America is doing is making thousands of enemies. I also find it said that in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Lebanon parents use drones to scare their kids like parents do monsters in America. For example, A parent might say "If you aren't being good then the drones will come down and get you" and the kids can hear the drones they just can't see them.

Thoughts?

Agree absolutely with this. Drones should be used sparingly for only the highest profile members of terrorist groups. The "collateral damage" of frequent usage is not acceptable any way you spin it.